THE SENATE

Thursday, February 16, 2017

Hon. Joseph A. Day (Leader of the Senate Liberals): Honourable
senators, Canada lost an icon yesterday. Stuart McLean — journalist,
storyteller, humorist, and friend to all of us through the magic of the radio —
died at the age of 68 years.

Though I never met Stuart McLean, like so many Canadians across the land, I
felt he was my friend. His voice, his timing and his stories showed us, with
humour, who we are.

He brought out the best of us and of our country.

The tagline of his CBC radio show "The Vinyl Cafe" was, "We may not be big,
but we're small."

Stuart — forgive me, but after decades of listening to him, he is and always
will be "Stuart" to me — saw the greatness in the small and in the ordinary
moments of our lives.

He regularly travelled with his radio show across the country, bringing a
national voice to each community and the voice of each community to the nation.
He had the gift for listening and then sharing what he heard with his own
listeners. He made us feel that we were in the auditorium with him and that we
were walking the streets of the town and sharing the local specialty and gossip
with him at the diner.

He helped us celebrate our differences and knit us together, with laughter,
some tears and always with great stories.

Say just five words, "Dave cooked the Christmas turkey," and millions of
Canadians would laugh, just as we have here today.

Well, Dave, Morley, Sam and Stephanie will have to live on without Stuart to
tell us their stories. But they are part of the Canadian lexicon now, indelibly
inscribed by that unmistakable voice and no doubt eating one or two of Kenny
Wong's Scottish meat pies.

Stuart, you will be terribly missed, but your voice and your stories will
live with us forever. Rest in peace.

Hon. Douglas Black: Honourable senators, I rise today to share with
you the work of the Rick Hansen Foundation and the vision for a more accessible
and prosperous Canada.

I am fortunate to sit on the advisory board of the Rick Hansen Foundation, so
I have seen firsthand the transformative work being done to benefit Canadians.

The mission of the foundation is to inspire leaders, such as senators,
governments and Canadians, to join with Rick Hansen in creating a global
movement to remove barriers in the physical environment, to liberate the full
potential of people living with disabilities.

With that fundamental foundation in place, other barriers are addressed,
including barriers to employment, education and transportation.

The result? Full engagement as productive citizens becomes possible.

A lot has been done, but so much more is needed to make Canada fully
accessible and inclusive. According to Statistics Canada, approximately one in
seven Canadians aged 15 or older reported having a disability that limited them
in their daily activities, and, as we all know as aging baby boomers, this
number will rise to as many as one in five Canadians within the next 20 years.
This demographic will drive the business case in support of accessibility.

As well, there are over 400,000 working-age Canadians with disabilities who
are not working but whose disability does not prevent them from doing so. Almost
half of these potential workers have post-secondary degrees. Accessibility is
often the reason given for this loss of productivity.

We have a once-in-a-generation opportunity, with the federal infrastructure
plan being proposed by the Government of Canada, to ensure that an accessible
Canada is built in which no one is left behind.

In a recent Angus Reid public opinion survey, 88 per cent of respondents
agreed that Canada should be a global leader in ensuring universal access to
public places, and we should be.

Canada needs to achieve universal accessibility, as championed by the Rick
Hansen Foundation. By doing so, we maximize the self-respect and the economic
potential of Canadians with disabilities.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw to your
attention the presence in the gallery of Benoît Huot, a Paralympic swimmer, his
wife, Annie Couture Courteau, and Alexandre Despatie, an Olympic diver. They are
the guests of Senator Petitclerc.

On behalf of all honourable senators, I welcome you to the Senate of Canada.

Hon. Chantal Petitclerc: Honourable senators, great minds think alike
because today, I rise to speak about the employment situation of Canadians with
disabilities.

Allow me first to again acknowledge the presence in the gallery of my friend,
Benoît Huot, swimmer and multiple Paralympic medalist. Tomorrow, Benoît will be
made a member of the Order of Canada for his contribution to parasports and his
work with young people.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

Senator Petitclerc: For Benoît and for thousands of Canadians, a
disability is not an obstacle to excellence. As we just heard, however, this is
not yet true in the workplace.

According to a recent Angus Reid poll, half of disabled Canadians do not find
work even though their disability does not prevent them from working. Statistics
Canada came to a similar conclusion in 2014 and even noted that disabled workers
earn less than their colleagues who do similar work. For example, despite the
fact that 14 per cent of Canadians 15 and older are disabled, persons with
disabilities account for less than 1 per cent of people in the workplace, even
here in this chamber. Fortunately, we all earn the same salary.

(1340)

Honourable colleagues, barriers to employment still exist. We heard about
them over and over during the consultations that should soon result in a new
federal accessibility law. More and more potential workers with disabilities
have post-secondary qualifications and the skills to be not a burden, but
active, productive citizens, yet our society still does not have the right
infrastructure to make it easier for people to get to and around at work.

In addition, many Canadians with disabilities find that social attitudes and
beliefs remain the greatest obstacles to their professional integration. The
erroneous belief that such individuals do not have the right skills prevents
employers from seeing their abilities and their potential.

We know that employers have a lot to gain from changing their outlook on
disabilities. For example, IT companies recruit autistic individuals to program
and validate software because they have a tremendous ability to concentrate and
find coding errors. Banks also benefit from the data analysis skills of autistic
people. Open- mindedness opens up all kinds of possibilities.

Honourable colleagues, I am not here today to complain. I am here to say that
if Canada wants to foster equal opportunity and the participation of people with
disabilities, we must do everything we can to eliminate obstacles that stand in
the way of employment.

In closing, I want to acknowledge the Government of Canada and Minister
Qualtrough's efforts to build an accessible Canada, and I hope that the results
we're looking for will meet our expectations.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your
attention to the presence in the gallery of guests of the Honourable Senator
Patterson who are here for the screening of the film Heaven's Floor. They
include Katie May Dunford, Andrew Dunford, Jeannie Qaunirq, Molly McCarthy,
Malaya Qaunirq Chapman and Justin Ford.

On behalf of all honourable senators, I welcome you to the Senate of Canada.

Hon. Dennis Glen Patterson: Honourable senators, Nunavut as a
territory has been growing and evolving since its creation on April 1, 1999. Its
cultural identity is shaped and heavily influenced by Inuit culture because
Inuit make up approximately 85 per cent of the population in Nunavut. Their
strong ties to their language and traditions are evident throughout the
territories. Traditional art forms such as carving, sewing and screen-printing
continue to be passed down, but the younger generation of Inuit has also begun
to embrace and experiment with other forms of self- expression.

Film has become a medium that more and more Nunavummiut have come to embrace
— and with great success. Pioneer filmmaker Zacharias Kunuk gave the world its
first film ever to be written, directed and acted entirely in Inuktitut. His
film Atanarjuat: the Fast Runner won the esteemed Camera d'Or and Golden
Camera at Cannes and six Genie awards, which recognize Canadian filmmaking
excellence. In 2015, the Toronto International Film Festival released its
updated list of the top Canadian films of all time, with Atanarjuat being
ranked number one.

Last year I had pleasure of screening the film Angry Inuk on the Hill.
In that multiple award-winning film, director and narrator Alethea Arnaquq-Baril
powerfully depicts Inuit victimization and long-repressed anger over the
demonization of the seal harvest by southern-based activists who know nothing of
the importance of this traditional industry to Inuit.

Tonight, I have the great pleasure of screening another film, Heaven's
Floor. It's also an award-winning film that has been described as a love
letter from a mother to her adopted Inuk daughter, Malaya, who is here today.
Written and directed by Lori Stoll, the story centres on how a young Inuk,
Malaya Qaunirq Chapman, played by 14-year-old Nunavut actress Katie May Dunford,
who is also with us today, came to be the adopted daughter of Los Angeles-based
photographer "Julia," played by Clea Duvall. Katie May won the best actress
award at the Eldorado Film Festival in Arkansas in September.

Heaven's Floor is now an award-winning film, having won Best Narrative
Feature, the biggest award of the Napa Valley Film Festival, and the Grand Jury
Award at the Alaska International Film Awards.

May I modestly note that my son George makes a cameo appearance in the film?

Some Hon. Senators: Oh, oh!

Senator Patterson: The film features poignant scenes between mother
and daughter, showcases the splendour and realities of the North, and includes
many Inuit in its productions. Among the producers of the film is Justin Ford,
another young Nunavummiut who is here today.

It is no easy feat to shoot a film in the North.

Colleagues, please join me in supporting this burgeoning industry and
encouraging the continued support of an art form that captures so well the
stories, traditions and imagination of Inuit.

Hon. Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu: Honourable senators, I rise today on
behalf of dozens of victims of crime who reach out to me every week and who
believe that the justice system has forgotten them.

When the Conservative government was in power, it implemented important
measures to help victims: parents whose children were murdered or disappeared
became eligible for employment insurance; the Canada Labour Code was amended to
protect their jobs; and the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights was passed.

Today, I want to share with you a heartbreaking and unacceptable situation in
which hundreds of victims of crime and their families find themselves in Canada.

[English]

I would like to speak to you today about Ms. Lise Bilodeau, from Quebec City,
whose daughter Corellie was assassinated in Sault Ste. Marie in 2013. Over four
years have passed since her death and to this day the trial still has not taken
place.

[Translation]

In her farewell message to her daughter, Ms. Bilodeau wrote:

Corellie was swept up by fate one morning, on August 10, 2013. A young
18-year-old man believed he had ultimate power when he altered my daughter's
destiny. The police told me it was a gratuitous and horrible murder.

Corellie's hell ended with her death, and that is when her mother's hell
began.

Ms. Bilodeau sent me the following message a few weeks ago:

We heard absolutely nothing for three years. We received tidbits of
information once in a while. We had to beg the investigator for information.
I never found out who disposed of my daughter's personal effects. They
treated her like a homeless person. I would like to tell you so much more,
but I know nothing, nothing, nothing. . .

This mother is fighting to be treated with respect and dignity in the
criminal justice system. She had to fight the Government of Ontario, which
refused to give her any kind of assistance so she could bury her daughter and
give her the funeral every human being deserves. When I learned of the situation
facing this grieving parent, and many others like her, I began dreaming of the
day when all victims and their families are treated fairly and equally, from
coast to coast to coast.

Unfortunately, that is not the experience of victims in Canada. It saddens me
that the families of these victims are given little or no assistance because of
the lack of reciprocity between provinces.

Then again, if you are charged with murder, no matter where you live in
Canada, you will undoubtedly be eligible for legal aid and you will have the
right to a fair trial. If you are convicted, you will have the right to certain
support measures for your rehabilitation. Much like if you travel anywhere in
Canada and you become sick, you will receive the same level of care.

However, if you are a victim of a crime committed outside the province where
you live, you will receive very little or no assistance.

[English]

Honourable senators, the horrible experience of Corellie's mother is one
example that represents the sad reality of what thousands of Canadian families
go through every year.

[Translation]

That is why I am asking for your support over the next few months as I appeal
to the Minister of Justice of Canada to recognize, with her provincial
counterparts, the principle of reciprocity between the provinces when it comes
to supporting victims.

[English]

It's a matter of equity and justice. It is a fundamental right that should be
granted to all victims of crime in our country.

Hon. Ratna Omidvar: I rise today to pay tribute to one of Canada's
greatest storytellers, Stuart McLean. It is with tremendous sadness that I read
of his passing away yesterday from skin cancer.

I started to listen to him many years ago when someone told me that to
understand Canada and Canadians, I had to tune in to the CBC, and I did.

And so I stumbled on to Stuart's signature voice on Saturday afternoons. He
told stories about ordinary Canadians doing ordinary things, in ordinary times.
I think that was his magic: to hold us together with the power of his voice and
narrative, no matter if you were listening from Toronto or Flin Flon, or Quebec
City or Calgary.

I think there was something very seductive about that voice, because it
invoked images and senses and flavours — so much so that, usually, when I heard
him on Saturday afternoons, I was driving in Toronto, usually stuck in a traffic
jam, sometimes in an ice storm, but mentally, that voice took me somewhere else,
usually a cozy home with a fireplace.

Stuart lived in the best city in Canada: Toronto.

Some Hon. Senators: Oh, oh.

Senator Omidvar: I was waiting for that.

Senator Campbell: You were doing so well.

Senator Omidvar: I expected that.

He lived in Kensington Market and it was there — one of the most beautiful
markets in our city — that he set the Vinyl Cafe, with Dave and Morley, Sam and
Stephanie and the turkey and the pets, and all those little stories that he told
with compassion and with humour, but always with respect and dignity.

Canadians sent him their stories, and he took these little ordinary stories
and transformed them into vignettes of humanity. As someone said today, he told
us our stories. He moved us to tears of joy and sadness, in equal measure, and
often at the same time, and as someone tweeted on social media today, this man
could read a phone book and make you laugh or cry. I bet he could do that with
the debates of the Senate, too.

In 2009, I had the incredible honour to spend a day with him at Rideau Hall,
because he and I were both inducted into the Order of Canada on the same day,
and my image of him as the quintessential Canadian was validated. We sat for
dinner together and I noticed that he was a very quiet person. He was very
modest and extremely self-deprecating, and whilst we were chattering in our
excitement — "Why did you get the order?" and "Why did I get the order?" — he
was making mental notes of our idiosyncrasies, our vanities and our foibles.

I secretly started to hope that I would find my way into his stories, but it
was not to be. Stuart signed off every show with his signature sendoff, and
whilst I cannot do his voice, I can do his send-off.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I have the honour to table,
in both official languages, a Case Report of Findings of the Office of the
Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada in the Matter of an Investigation
into a Disclosure of Wrongdoing at the Public Health Agency of Canada, pursuant
to subsection 38(3.3) of the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act.

The Hon. the Speaker informed the Senate that a message had been
received from the House of Commons with Bill C-37, An Act to amend the
Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and to make related amendments to other
Acts.

(Bill read first time.)

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, when shall this bill be
read the second time?

(On motion of Senator Harder, bill placed on the Orders of the Day for second
reading two days hence.)

Hon. Claude Carignan (Leader of the Opposition): Thank you, Mr.
Speaker. My question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate.

In November 2016, the Minister of Agriculture announced two new programs
worth $350 million in support of Canada's dairy producers as the Canada-European
Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement comes into effect.

Online consultations were held regarding these new programs, namely, the
Dairy Farm Investment Program and the Dairy Processing Investment Fund. These
consultations were completed about two months ago.

Could the Leader of the Government tell us when the government plans to
implement these two programs?

[English]

Hon. Peter Harder (Government Representative in the Senate): I thank
the honourable senator for his question. It is entirely appropriate that, as we
now have the bill to implement the CETA, that questions should arise with
respect to how Canada will implement the arrangements in a forward-looking way.

With respect to the precise timing, I will certainly inquire, but I would
expect that that timing would have everything to do with when this chamber,
quite appropriately, after deliberation and consideration, passes the bill that
would allow CETA to be implemented.

After that, there is an exchange of diplomatic notes which will allow both
the European Union and Canada to implement this agreement. It would be in that
context that the government will put forward its plan in a more precise way for
implementation of the CETA.

[Translation]

Senator Carignan: Thank you. From my understanding, the programs that
you mentioned will not come into effect until the trade agreement is fully
implemented. However, perhaps the Leader may recall that, when this funding was
announced, some people indicated that they were concerned about how much was
being allocated and how it would be divided among the provinces. Has the
government determined how this money will be divided among the provinces,
assuming of course that Canada goes forward with the trade deal? If not, when
does the government intend to make a decision on this and share it with the
provinces and the dairy industry?

[English]

Senator Harder: I believe those discussions are still ongoing, both
with stakeholders and within government, and an announcement will be forthcoming
when it is appropriate.

Hon. Ghislain Maltais: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the
Leader of the Government in the Senate, of course. Could the leader sum up what
he has learned so far about the bovine tuberculosis epidemic that hit Alberta
and Saskatchewan?

[English]

Hon. Peter Harder (Government Representative in the Senate): Again, I
thank the honourable senator for his question. As he well knows, because he has
asked many questions on this issue, the Government of Canada and the ministers
responsible, particularly the Minister of Agriculture, have been monitoring this
situation very closely. I will inquire of a precise update so that I have that
available for the Senate, but I am aware that significant progress has been
made, although there continue to be a number of farms that are in quarantine,
and I will seek an update and report to the Senate.

[Translation]

Senator Maltais: You know, Mr. Leader, the British parliamentarian
Winston Churchill liked to say, "I'm asking the question because I know the
answer." Here is, then, the answer to mine.

(1400)

As of February 2, 10,000 head of cattle had been slaughtered and $11 million
in compensation paid out to farmers. There is still one infected herd, six
animals are infected, and 28,000 are in quarantine. The provinces involved are
Alberta and Saskatchewan. Twelve sites have been released from quarantine.
Basically, the crisis is over. The only problem is that the Canadian Food
Inspection Agency has not yet figured out how the animals were infected in the
first place. I know that the Minister of Agriculture is working on this and is
supposed to get me an answer.

It is critical for the problem to be resolved before the animals are released
into the wild in the spring. The infection must not be allowed to spread beyond
the provinces involved.

[English]

Senator Harder: I thank the honourable senator for his answer. It felt
like "Jeopardy" for a while. I will take his supplementary into account when I
speak with the minister.

Hon. Kelvin Kenneth Ogilvie: My question is for the Leader of the
Government in the Senate, and I know this is a subject on which he has
considerable expertise. It has to do with spent fowl.

Canada's chicken producers continue to raise concerns regarding broiler
chickens from the United States being mislabelled as spent fowl and crossing our
border tariff-free. For senators' benefit, spent fowl is the name given to
laying hens that are no longer productive. They are processed, and the meat is
generally used in soups and other things of that nature.

The issue here is that even though we have tariffs on all value- added
products in this area — very important agricultural tariffs on products crossing
the border with the United States — this is one aspect of chicken that comes
into Canada essentially tariff- free.

Why is that a problem? Our first clue should have been that the U.S. ships
more spent fowl into Canada than it produces in a year. How can that be? It
turns out that broiler chicken is often deliberately mislabelled as spent fowl
and then shipped into Canada. Broiler chicken is a value-added product. If it
enters Canada tariff-free and is then repackaged in Canada as broiler chicken or
another high value-added product, it competes unfairly against Canada's own
production, and it subverts the quota that is allowed to come into Canada.

The issue here is that this is causing our chicken producers in Canada
considerable losses annually, and the Government of Canada, as recently as
November, has indicated that it intends to deal with this issue under one of the
duty relief programs.

I have a question and a brief supplemental. First, could the Leader of the
Government tell us how quickly the government is proceeding to deal with this
clearly contraband issue?

Hon. Peter Harder (Government Representative in the Senate): I thank
the honourable senator for his question. He's a bit generous in suggesting I'm
experienced with the subject matter, although I wouldn't go so far as to suggest
it was a "fowl" question.

As he knows, when the Minister of Agriculture was here responding to a
question from a Senate colleague on this very subject, he indicated that it was
one that he was very actively engaging with his U.S. counterpart on.

You will know of course that there has been an administration change. I will
inquire of the minister when and how he is engaging with the new administration
on this subject as the new secretary of agriculture has just assumed office — I
believe that secretary has been confirmed — and I will report back.

Senator Ogilvie: Here is my supplementary. It was our understanding at
the Agricultural Committee that a DNA test has been developed at Trent
University that can distinguish spent fowl from others. As you know from your
days on the board of Genome Canada, a DNA test is often very rapid and highly
accurate in its detection. We were assured by government officials that they
were actually moving in this direction and taking it seriously with regard to
either using this test or another DNA test to help on this matter.

I wonder, leader, if you could follow up on this issue as well, because it
obviously offers an immediate ability to detect at the border the differences
between the legitimate and non-legitimate product.

Senator Harder: I will, indeed, senator.

I would use the occasion of responding to your question by just outlining and
underlining to all senators and Canadians the benefits of investing in genomics
in Canada, because it is not just in relation to health benefits but there are
benefits in the agriculture, forestry and fisheries sectors — they all benefit
from the investments that have been made. This is a classic example of a new
tool that can cheaply and readily identify what was before a more problematic
identification.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett: My question is also for the Leader of the
Government in the Senate, and it is on an issue I have previously raised with
him.

Mr. Leader, the grain transportation has been a concern for Western Canadian
grain farmers for several years now, and you have spoken in favour of some of
the initiatives. As the government leader, you are aware that the Minister of
Transportation has promised to introduce legislation this spring to allow
reciprocal penalties in service-level agreements between railway companies and
their customers. Decisions on two related issues, interswitching distances and
the maximum revenue entitlement, are expected at the same time as this
legislation. The 2017-18 crop year begins on August 1. The time frame here is
extremely tight.

My question, leader, is this: Does the Liberal government expect that this
forthcoming legislation will be in place for the start of the next crop year?

Hon. Peter Harder (Government Representative in the Senate): I thank
my honourable cousin for his question. Honourable senators have all forgotten
that we're related.

Senator Neufeld: Actually, he has.

Senator Harder: That's a good one. On both sides.

I also want to compliment the senator for bringing the grain producers
together in a session yesterday, I believe. The question he's asking is one that
I will have to speak with the minister about. I do know the minister made a
commitment for the spring. Spring is not yet here, but I will seek an update and
report directly.

Senator Plett: Cousin Harder, as I said to you yesterday, we can
choose our friends but not our relatives.

Some Hon. Senators: Oh, oh!

Senator Plett: Of course, I'm proud to be related.

A supplementary question for my cousin: If this new legislation is not in
place for the new crop year, would you ask the government to consider extending
the provisions of the Fair Rail Grain for Farmers Act for an additional year?

Hon. Tobias C. Enverga, Jr.: My question is for the Leader of the
Government in the Senate. It's a follow-up to a question I asked last week about
the Liberal carbon taxes hurting Ontario farmers.

Greenhouse growers in Ontario have been hit with high energy costs since the
Liberal provincial government brought in its cap and trade tax on January 1. One
greenhouse grower in Essex county told the media last week that his annual gas
bill will double from about $120,000 last year to $240,000 this year.

(1410)

My question for the Leader of the Government in the Senate is this: If
farmers are already struggling with higher costs due to increased provincial
taxes, how does this Liberal government expect they will cope with the federal
carbon taxes imposed?

Hon. Peter Harder (Government Representative in the Senate): I think
it's important for all senators to understand that the approach the government
has taken to climate change is one of working with the provinces and allowing
some variability in how provinces respond to their collective commitment to
dealing with climate change. The question he's asking is more appropriate for
the chamber in Ontario, where the Government of Ontario has chosen a particular
course and will have to answer, as it should, to all Ontarians with respect to
its implementation.

Senator Enverga: I have a supplementary question. These greenhouse
growers compete with American producers who will not bear the burden of carbon
taxes under the new Trump administration as Canadian operations will. Why is
this Liberal government intent on taxing our farmers out of competition with
their American counterparts?

Senator Harder: Again, I would remind the senator and all senators
that the approach being taken by the Government of Canada is one of cooperation
with the provinces, one of collectively aligning our policies to deal with
climate change.

It is the view of the Government of Canada and, through the expression of
federal-provincial cooperation, a determination by all levels of government to
deal with this problem in a fashion that advantages Canada and makes a more
sustainable and environmentally sound economic ecosystem for Canada. That
remains the objective of the federal-provincial work in this area.

Hon. Jean-Guy Dagenais: My question is for the Government
Representative in the Senate. The visit of the Prime Minister of Canada with the
new President of the United States, Donald Trump, was not very reassuring when
it comes to the trans-Pacific partnership. The future of many Canadian
businesses and thousands of jobs, including in the agriculture sector, depends
on that agreement.

Can the Government Representative in the Senate tell us whether the TPP will
survive under the new administration south of the border? If not, when will the
Prime Minister unveil a plan for bilateral negotiations to reassure our
producers?

[English]

Hon. Peter Harder (Government Representative in the Senate): hank the
honourable senator for his question. It raises a subject that is very important
for Canada, for parliamentarians both in this place and the other, and that is
quite frankly how are we, as a country, going to engage bilaterally and
multilaterally with the expanding economies in Asia.

This is a subject that is very high on the agenda of the government. The
Minister of International Trade is actively looking at and discussing with his
colleagues the TPP framework and how best to proceed. There are discussions
taking place and at the appropriate time the Government of Canada will make its
strategy known.

Hon. Victor Oh: Honourable senators, my question is for the Leader of
the Government in the Senate.

Today is Canada's Agriculture Day. There is a media report today that
Canada's export of peas and lentils to India may soon be in jeopardy. India
requires the use of certain pesticides to control pulse pests. However, Canada
is trying to phase out this pesticide due to the concerns of its inefficiency in
our cold climate and its risk to the ozone layer.

There are indications that as of the end of this March, India intends to
implement new measures. There are about 12,000 pulse farms in Canada. According
to Pulse Canada, more than 85 per cent of Canada's pulse production is exported
globally. India is a major destination, accounting for one third of our pulse
exports in 2015, worth about $1.5 billion. This is similar to a situation that
emerged last year involving canola exports to China when the Chinese expressed
concern regarding the possibility of transferring blackleg fungus from canola
exports.

What is the Government of Canada currently doing to ensure Canadian peas and
lentil exporters maintain access to the Indian market?

Hon. Peter Harder (Government Representative in the Senate): Again, I
thank the honourable senator for his question. Clearly, every day is Agriculture
Day for the Minister of Agriculture and for the Minister of International Trade
because so much of our trade is agriculture and agri-food related.

This is a serious issue. The minister is very much engaged with his
counterparts in India. You are quite right in referencing the canola issue in
China last year. It is one where high-level engagement needs to take place, is
taking place, and at the appropriate time I would expect the minister to
respond.

Hon. Claude Carignan (Leader of the Opposition): Clearly, it's
Agriculture Day today, Leader. We wanted to mark the occasion with a series of
questions relevant to agriculture.

My next agriculture-related question deals with diafiltered milk. In January,
groups of American dairy producers wrote the new President of the United States
on the issue of diafiltered milk to say that they believed that Canada violated
its NAFTA and WTO trade obligations when it moved to block these imports. A
similar letter was sent to the governors of 25 U.S. states last month.

Can the Leader of the Government in the Senate tell us whether the Government
of Canada has caught wind of a response to the allegations contained in these
letters?

[English]

Hon. Peter Harder (Government Representative in the Senate): I thank
the honourable senator for his question. Diafiltered milk has been the subject
of a question in this chamber with the Minister of Agriculture. I will have to
take his question on notice because of the specific nature of the request, but I
can assure the senator and all senators that the Minister of Agriculture is
deeply engaged on a regular basis with this subject and with his American
counterparts. I would be happy to report back.

[Translation]

Senator Carignan: Last June, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food
said that he wanted a permanent solution to the diafiltered milk issue. Since
then, the federal government has not said a word on the matter.

Canada's milk producers estimate losses due to the diafiltered milk issue to
be approximately $231 million a year.

Could the Leader of the Government in the Senate tell us when the government
intends to keep the promise it made during the campaign to resolve this very
serious problem for the dairy sector?

[English]

Senator Harder: I want to assure the honourable senator and all
senators that the Minister of Agriculture remains deeply committed to a
satisfactory outcome of this state of affairs with respect to diafiltered milk.
He has engaged the previous administration. I would expect that he will equally
engage the new administration with a view of finding a solution that protects
Canadian interests.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I am ready to rule on the
point of order raised by Senator Plett yesterday. On February 14, when Senator McPhedran gave her first speech in the
Senate, she included the following statement:

[English]

Last week, when Senator Plett was here, I heard him speak of his
opposition to Bill C-16, and I have read some senators' concerns that Bill
C-16 and new grammar on trans rights will infringe on their rights. I am not
able to find any legal substance to these concerns but, as my fellow senator
from Manitoba spoke, Senator Plett referred to "these people" or "those
people," and, to my ears, I heard "othering." Othering can be understood as
an indicator of bigotry. Colleagues, bigotry does not strengthen an
inclusive democracy.

The substance of Senator Plett's point of order is that he has been
identified as a bigot through association with "othering." He understood Senator
McPhedran's statement as a direct accusation of bigotry, and he was not alone in
this interpretation. Senator Pratte, for example, recognized the powerful nexus
in the speech, when he stated:

Even though there was subtlety in the words, I certainly perceived this
as unparliamentary language. I know that if I had been the target of those
words, I would have felt very unsettled and profoundly insulted. I
understand Senator Plett's feelings today.

(1420)

[Translation]

Senator McPhedran did attempt to clarify her remarks, arguing that they
were not actually about Senator Plett. She stated that the language used by
Senator Plett with respect to "those people" "can be" symptomatic of
bigotry, but are not necessarily so. She also proposed to remove the
specific references to Senator Plett if that would help address the
objection.

[English]

Honourable senators, words are powerful; they do matter. This is
especially true when they are used to criticize not just a different point
of view, but those who hold that point of view. A statement must be looked
at in its totality, taking account of its overall effect, not just parsing
fine gradations of meaning. Senator Pratte's statement to which I have made
reference summarizes well the effect of the remark at issue.

Rule 6-13(1), states that "All personal, sharp or taxing speeches are
unparliamentary and are out of order." The Senate is characterized by the
respectful exchange of ideas and information, even when we deal with topics
about which honourable senators have strong views. We should always show
respect for each other, no matter our views on an issue, since the right to
hold and express our divergent opinions is the basis of free speech.

I know that we do give some leeway to new senators — we have all been new
senators at one time — particularly in their first speech. However, the
remarks alluding to Senator Plett were outside the bounds of acceptable
parliamentary debate. They were hurtful and inappropriate. Such language
does not help us in performing our duties. It creates discord and animosity.
This does not serve the public good, the ultimate objective of all our work
here as senators.

The language in Senator McPhedran's speech of February 14 can, in the
context it was used, be characterized as unparliamentary. The point of order
is well founded. I strongly urge Senator McPhedran, and of course all
senators, to avoid offensive personal language. Colleagues, let us continue
to engage in respectful debate and avoid, at all times, personal attacks.

Hon. André Pratte moved second reading of Bill C-30, An Act to
implement the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada and the
European Union and its Member States and to provide for certain other measures.

He said: Honourable senators, I'm sorry to say that I will not be brief.

I rise today to speak in favour of Bill C-30, An Act to implement the
Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada and the European Union
and its Member States and to provide for certain other measures.

All indications are that Canada, like all developed nations, will experience
relatively slow domestic growth in the foreseeable future. This is due to a
combination of several factors, particularly the aging population and the
slowdown in emerging countries such as China. As a result, our governments and
central banks are seeking desperately, I would say, ways of stimulating growth:
expansionary budgets, infrastructure spending, quantitative easing and low or
even negative interest; however, for a country as rich in resources and talent
as Canada, the most powerful driver of economic development is trade.

This is why the Comprehensive Economic Trade Agreement, CETA, with the
European Union, is so crucial for Canada. It comes at a time when our economy
needs a boost. That can only happen, of course, if the agreement comes into
force. Since the European Parliament has approved the agreement yesterday, all
that remains for that to happen is this chamber's approval of Bill C-30.

[Translation]

For the agreement to come into force, our Parliament first needs to pass Bill
C-30, which amends a number of acts to make them consistent with the terms and
conditions of CETA. Now that parliamentarians have accepted the agreement, we
need to pass Bill C-30 rapidly and we need to do it with conviction.

There is no reason not to. The agreement was negotiated by governments led by
the two political parties in this chamber. When he was Prime Minister, Stephen
Harper said:

. . . the trade agreement between Canada and Europe is the biggest deal
Canada has ever made. It will create jobs and opportunities for families,
businesses and workers across Canada.

Today, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said:

CETA will offer significant benefits for most sectors of the Canadian
economy, from fishermen in Newfoundland and Labrador, to aerospace workers
in Quebec, and from people assembling automobiles in Ontario, to forest
industry workers in British Columbia to miners in the Northwest Territories.

CETA will give Canadian businesses tariff-free access to a huge market of 510
million residents, which is 14 times the population of Canada, the second
largest market of goods and services in the world. Even without the United
Kingdom, after Brexit, it is still a market of 445 million people, which is 110
million more people than the United States.

Once the agreement is in effect, 98 per cent of Canadian goods will be able
to enter Europe tariff free, compared to just 25 per cent today. This is true
for many agricultural products, including everything from maple syrup to apples
to cranberries. Canadian beef and pork producers will benefit gradually, over a
five-year transition period, from greater market access in the EU thanks to new
tariff quotas.

Once in effect, Canadian metals and minerals, such as aluminium, copper and
zinc, will be able to enter EU countries duty free. That will also be the case
for petroleum products and certain fish and seafood products, such as lobster,
salmon and crab. Lastly, it is also true for manufactured products, 99 per cent
of which will be exportable duty free as soon as the agreement comes into
effect.

[English]

The key characteristics of this agreement, however, are its scope and its
innovativeness. In the area of investment, for example, the agreement not only
paves the way for greater investment by both sides but also institutes a
permanent dispute settlement mechanism. This mechanism differs from the NAFTA
arbitral tribunals in that arbitrators will be chosen from a permanent pool of
15 persons instead of being appointed by the parties on a case- by-case basis.
This will prevent any perceived bias towards businesses, since all the
arbitrators will have been chosen by the participating states beforehand.

In addition — and this is very important — the agreement confirms the right
of governments to act in the public interest in areas such as health, safety and
the environment. In other words, investors cannot sue governments for acting
solely in the public interest.

The agreement promotes and facilitates the mutual recognition of professional
qualifications between Canada and Europe. Because the mobility of highly skilled
business people is so important to companies' growth and the expansion of trade,
temporary entry of Canadian business people into Europe and of European business
people into Canada is also made easier. The agreement takes aim at reducing
technical barriers to trade, which are sometimes substituted for tariffs when
these are lower.

The provisions of the chapter on technical barriers to trade ensure that
where differences in regulations or standards arise between Canada and Europe,
convergence is promoted where possible, while protecting each party's right to
regulate in its own best interest.

One chapter in the agreement aims at simplifying licensing and regulatory
requirements for services and investments so that they do not curb trade between
the two blocs. We must be mindful that Europe is the largest importer of
services in the world, $936 billion in 2015. Business opportunities for Canadian
firms are tremendous.

(1430)

Where government procurement is concerned, CETA goes much further than the
WTO agreement. Here, a very broad range of government entities — central,
sub-central, municipal governments, government enterprises — must submit
contracts that are above a certain value to non-discriminatory tendering. Some
sectors have been excluded, such as health, education, culture, public
administration, financial services and R & D. Nevertheless, CETA gives Canadian
companies access to an enormous government procurement market valued at $3.3
trillion per year, in areas such as water treatment, electricity generation and
public transit.

Another fundamental consideration is that under this agreement, Canada and
the European Union agree not to lower their labour and environmental protection
standards as a means of encouraging trade or investment.

[Translation]

Honourable senators, the implementation of this sort of agreement naturally
requires some changes to be made to Canadian legislation. These changes are set
out in Bill C-30.

The bill is divided into four parts. Part 1 officially approves the
agreement, provides for the payment by Canada of its share of the expenses
associated with the operation of the institutional and administrative aspects of
the agreement, and authorizes the Minister of International Trade to propose the
names of individuals to serve as members of the various tribunals established to
settle disputes between parties and between investors and the states.

Part 3 contains consequential amendments, and Part 4 contains coordinating
amendments and the coming-into-force provision. Part 2 is the heart of Bill
C-30.

Among other things, Bill C-30 amends the following acts. First, it amends the
Export and Import Permits Act to allow the implementation of the provisions of
CETA pertaining to the rules of origin, which will make it possible to export
many Canadian- made products to Europe with preferential tariff treatment,
including some products made partially of imported materials, such as
automobiles.

Second, Bill C-30 amends the Patent Act to create a framework for the
issuance of certificates of supplementary protection, for which patentees with
patents relating to pharmaceutical products or medication will be eligible.
These certificates will extend the life of the patent for up to a maximum of two
years to take into account the delay between the date the patent is filed and
the date it receives market authorization. I will come back to that a little
later.

Bill C-30 will amend the Trade-marks Act to protect EU geographical
indications found in an annex of the agreement. Think of names such as
prosciutto, Brie de Meaux, and parmigiano reggiano. Indications that have long
been used by Canadian producers, such as feta and gorgonzola, will benefit from
acquired rights.

Bill C-30 will also amend the Investment Canada Act to raise from $600
million to $1.5 billion the threshold as of which investments are reviewable by
investors from countries that are party to the agreement, or in other words
countries that are members of the European Union.

The Coastal Trading Act is amended to provide that European ships will be
able to engage in certain dredging activities in Canada and in coastal trade
between Montreal and Halifax. The Customs Tariff Act is amended to eliminate
tariffs on goods imported from the European Union, immediately or in stages.

As we know, and as I said earlier, the Comprehensive Economic and Trade
Agreement between Canada and the European Union was negotiated by a Conservative
government and a Liberal government. It therefore enjoys significant support
among the political class. Nonetheless, some aspects of the agreement have been
criticized. Unions, for example, and a segment of what we call "civil society"
take a dim view of a particular part of the agreement.

They believe it will bring few gains in terms of economic growth and jobs,
even lead to job losses. They believe the agreement extends excessive rights to
multinationals and that it will result in privatization of public services and
higher drug prices at the expense of sick people and public drug insurance
plans.

Some of these predictions are familiar. There were similar attempts at
fearmongering before the free trade agreement with the United States and NAFTA
were signed. Those fears were not borne out. Other criticisms are specific to
the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement.

[English]

When it comes to CETA's impact on jobs, most studies forecast a positive
impact in Canada and the European Union alike, although one analysis in
particular predicts a negative one. Personally, I'm skeptical of a scenario
predicting that employment will decline following the opening of one of the
largest markets in the world to Canadian businesses.

Let us look at just one promising area out of hundreds: plastics and
chemicals. Right now, these products face average tariffs of 4.9 per cent in the
European Union, which will be eliminated when the agreement comes into force,
giving Canadian producers an advantage over their competitors. The same applies
to a host of Canadian industries. CETA will create jobs in Canada.

One would think that extending the period of patent protection on new drugs —
from a few months to up to two years — would have some effect on prices, but how
much of an effect? Opponents of the agreement quote a study indicating that
prices will increase from 6 to 13 per cent by 2023. According to the authors
themselves, however, there are several uncertainties in this study.

Let us start by pointing out that the extra protection will apply only to
drugs entering the market after the agreement comes into force. An amendment was
made to the bill in the other place in order to make this crystal clear. So the
price of drugs that you and I are taking today, and at our age we're taking more
and more, whether they be brand name or generic, will not increase, nor will the
drug bill now being paid by the health care systems. If there is an impact, it
will only be in the long term because generics will take a little longer, up to
two years longer, to come on the market.

Note that many factors play a role in drug prices, which are already higher
in Canada than in some European countries, even though patent protection lasts
five years longer in Europe than here. Factors other than the patent protection
term are therefore in play here, government policy being a big one.

That is why the Government of Canada has partnered with provincial
governments so that they, through the pan-Canadian Pharmaceutical Alliance, can
negotiate brand name and generate drug prices as a bloc with pharmaceutical
companies. These collective negotiations have generated $700 million in savings
to date. Ottawa, the provinces and territories are now looking at other ways to
make prescription drugs more affordable.

The other controversial component of the Canada-EU agreement is the
investor-state dispute settlement system. The National Union of Public and
General Employees say that the dispute settlement system is the most dangerous
characteristic of the agreement and the greatest threat to the integrity of our
democratic institutions. Under this scenario, states would become increasingly
reluctant to bring in new public policies because investors could receive
significant compensation as a result of adverse government decisions.

I call it the way I see it: That is paranoia, especially since, as I said
earlier, the dispute resolution mechanism has been improved substantially since
NAFTA. Members of the investment tribunal will be chosen by the member states,
not by the parties to a particular dispute. Investors will have no say in it at
all. Arbitrators must adhere to a code of ethics. Unlike cases we have seen in
the past, they will not be able to act as counsel, experts or witnesses in other
investment disputes with the concomitant risk of perceived conflict of interest.

The arbitration tribunal hearings will be open to the public and records of
the proceedings will also be made public. According to University of Ottawa Law
Professor J.A. VanDuzer, CETA incorporates Canadian best practices designed to
enhance the state's ability to manage investors' state disputes and addresses
many of the legitimacy-based concerns that have been raised.

[Translation]

In the agriculture sector, as I said earlier, CETA opens the enormous
European market to Canadian producers. In exchange, a concession had to be made.
We managed to preserve the supply management system, but Canada has authorized
the duty-free importation of 17,700 tonnes of cheese, of which 16,000 tonnes
will undoubtedly be fine cheeses, which corresponds to 30 per cent of the
existing Canadian market for this type of cheese. That will happen gradually
over the next five years, but it will inevitably have an impact on milk and
cheese producers in Canada.

(1440)

To soften the blow and, especially, to help them face this heightened
competition, the government has created a $350 million assistance program — $250
million for dairy producers and $100 million for processors — to help them
modernize their equipment and adapt to the new market conditions. The dairy
producers with whom I have met believe this is not sufficient and are calling
instead for $150 million per year, over at least seven years, since they
maintain that all new cheese imports represent a net loss to them.

In reality, according to Agriculture Canada's projections, cheese sales will
continue to rise in Canada over the next ten years, in spite of increased
European imports, thanks to population growth, and so Canadian dairy producers'
and processors' revenue will rise by more than two per cent per year, on
average, in spite of increased imports.

Milk producers and processors will do well if the assistance programs are
properly tailored to their needs and if the import quotas are wisely allocated.
That is why the government of Canada has held intensive consultations on these
issues over the last few months with affected individuals and groups, and the
decisions on this subject will be made and announced this spring.

Honourable senators, as we know, we are living in times when the temptation
to turn inward is strong. Hoping to solve our security problems and our economic
problems, we look to solutions that appear easy, like closing our borders to
people and goods from outside.

The protectionist trend was certainly illustrated spectacularly last year by
Donald Trump's victory in the United States and the Brexit victory in the United
Kingdom. The trend did not start last year, however. According to the most
recent World Trade Organization report, almost 3,000 trade-restrictive measures
have been introduced by WTO members since 2008. Of those measures, only 700, or
about one quarter, had been eliminated by mid-October 2016. There are therefore
still over 2,200 trade- restrictive measures still in place.

According to Roberto Azevêdo, the Director-General of the World Trade
Organization, and I quote:

Trade restrictive measures can have a chilling effect on trade flows, with
knock-on effects for economic growth and job creation.

[English]

After the European Parliament's international trade committee voted to
approve CETA in late January, European Parliament member Sorin Moisa said, "It's
more than just a free-trade treaty with Canada. It's a statement about how we
relate with the rest of the world." This statement is certainly true for us as
well.

It is sometimes said that Canada has no choice but to trade with the rest of
the world, that it is in a way doomed to do so by its geology, geography and
demographics.

That is true to a great extent. As the government's Advisory Council on
Economic Growth recently pointed out, the relatively small size of our economy
requires us to trade to maintain our growth and prosperity. Developed economies
that are larger and more diversified have other sources of growth. For example,
international trade represents 30 per cent of the GDP in the United States but
65 per cent of the GDP of Canada.

At the same time, Canada also chooses to trade with the world because it is
profoundly Canadian to maintain ties of all kinds, friendship, solidarity and
economic and cultural relationships with people from all over the world.

Last year, Canada was held up as an example throughout the world for the way
it welcomed refugees from the Syrian conflict. In 2017, Canada will be
highlighted for the way it resisted the protectionist current and implemented
history's most modern and most ambitious free trade treaty, the Canada-European
Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement.

This is why I urge you to vote in favour of Bill C-30, which implements this
landmark agreement. Thank you.

Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Would the senator
take a few questions?

First of all, congratulations on your lengthiest speech, senator.

I was the sponsor of the Canada-Korea Free Trade Agreement implementation
bill. As I was listening to you, many of your comments sounded very familiar to
me.

A few things are curious. In the ratification process for the European Union,
all the member states have to ratify in their respective parliaments. Is that
any indication of what Canada may have to face, even after successful
ratification of this agreement? Will Canada have access that will be truly with
fewer barriers than there would be without an agreement? Or will there be
complicated processes to go to various parliaments rather than dealing with the
European Union as a whole?

I know there will have to be a little of both, but I'm wondering about how
complex the ratification process will be. What other barriers and complex
processes will Canada have to deal with even after implementation?

Senator Pratte: Thank you for the question. Things are never as easy
as we wish them to be, but, yes, once Bill C-30 is adopted, there will be a few
things to settle. There will be an exchange of letters between Canada and the
EU, and then the agreement will be provisionally implemented. That means that
tariff reductions will be in force, but there will be a ratification process in
Europe where each parliament will have to ratify the agreement. However, the
agreement will be in full force right from the moment that the exchange of
letters happens, and Canadian businesses will have access to those markets
immediately.

Senator Martin: It still sounds like it will be a complex process, but
I understand your answer, senator.

You did acknowledge the work of our previous Conservative government,
Minister Ed Fast, his predecessor and the incredible work they did to allow the
current government to continue the work.

The dairy producers were here recently. I was quite startled at the figure
that 30 per cent of the cheese market will be the impact of this agreement; and
$250 million for an entire industry is a lot of money, but it doesn't seem
enough.

Would you expand on what assurances our dairy producers can hear at this
time? I'm from British Columbia. It is a very important industry there as it is
in other parts of our country, so the 30 per cent seems very high to me.

Senator Pratte: Yes, it is 30 per cent of the specialty cheese market,
not of the whole cheese market. Oftentimes, this amount is compared to the
amount proposed by the previous government, which was $1 billion over 10 years.
Obviously that sounds like a smaller amount, but the $1 billion over 10 years
was an amount for compensation for both CETA and TPP, and TPP was an opening of
the whole milk market not only of the cheese market, so there's a huge
difference there.

All the groups and experts I have talked to tell me that the sales of cheese
were increasing very rapidly. There will be a reduction, but it is a reduction
in the rate of increase, not a net reduction, so that producers of cheese can
still count on a yearly increase of their market, but it will be a smaller
increase.

Everyone tells me as well that a very important thing will be how import
quotas are distributed. Depending on who gets the import quotas, who gets
control of what, will be extremely important. That will be a determinant of how
milk producers can fare with that increase of imports. That's a decision the
government has to make. Hopefully, with the wide-ranging consultations that they
have made, they will be able to make the right decisions so that milk producers
and transformers will be able to fare with the increase in imports.

(1450)

Hon. Percy E. Downe: Honourable senators, after Senator Pratte's
enthusiastic endorsement of Bill C-30, I felt I should talk about a few things.

Senator Pratte, in the translation you said we should pass it quickly. I hope
those were your words and not misinterpretation. That's a red flag to me,
because when I was here in my early days in the Senate — and many have heard me
speak about this before — it was the best of intentions. In 2005, then-Prime
Minister Martin, Opposition Leader Harper and NDP leader Layton, visited the
Netherlands and had a ceremony honouring Canadians who fought in the Second
World War, they were obviously moved by the events, and on the plane on the way
back they decided they should pass the veterans' charter with much haste, no
delay, because who is not in favour of assisting veterans, their families and
giving them the resources they need?

The veterans' charter came back to the House of Commons. It was moved by the
Minister of Veterans Affairs. The motion was agreed to, the bill was read the
second time, considered in committee, reported, concurred and read the third
time and passed in one minute in the House of Commons. It then came to the
Senate, the chamber of sober second thought, where we were all swept up in
wanting to do the right thing. Again, who is opposed to improving veterans'
benefits? Who is opposed to benefits for the families and children?

In the Senate we spent a little more time. We had first and second reading on
the same day. It was agreed that there would be one speaker and half an hour of
questions, and then the Senate collectively agreed that we would refer it to
committee, unlike the House of Commons. Which committee did we refer it to? You
would assume it would have been the Veterans Affairs Committee, where we have
had members who have studied veterans' issues for years; or, failing that, the
Committee of National Defence.

The Senate decided in their rush to refer it to the next committee sitting,
which was the Finance Committee. So the veterans' charter went to the Finance
Committee, where we had one long meeting. I happened to be on the Finance
Committee at that time, so I recall it very well, and I recall the rush to get
it through. I cast no dispersions on those involved. It was done with the best
of intentions. Everyone was doing it for the right reasons, but the institution
of the Senate did not do its job. We did not do sober second thought.

At the Finance Committee, we heard from Sean Bruyea, a veteran of the
Canadian Forces. He's been in the media, so I'm not telling any stories here. He
suffers from post-traumatic stress syndrome. He has stated that publicly. He
said at that meeting:

We all know that the government wants to be seen as honouring veterans,
but that does not necessarily mean that their veterans charter is free of
errors. In fact, given that the veterans' contribution to society is defined
in many ways as timeless, one must ask, why is there such a rush to force
something through in only two days after Veterans Affairs Canada has been
dragging its heels for more than 15 years? We believe disabled veterans and
the CF would rather have it right than have a flawed and unjust charter
right now.

Well, we have spent many years trying to repair the veterans' charter. We
have veterans still complaining about it. We have the departments still trying
to resolve the problems of it, all because it was rushed through.

Senator Pratte, again, I cast no dispersions. I believe your enthusiasm for
the legislation is well-placed, but let us do our job. Let's confirm that.

We also had a recent example of rushing in the Senate, and that happened last
year. At the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, International Trade Minister
Freeland testified in support of enabling legislation for a World Trade
Organization agreement Canada had signed. It was a rush to pass it.

The Minister said at the meeting: "I believe Canada should ratify it as
quickly as possible" for the TFA to come into force.

. . . 108 WTO member countries need to ratify it. Right now —

— and this is November 22, 2016 —

— 96 countries have ratified the TFA. It's really important for Canada's
status as an effective and energetic participant in the multilateral trade
community and in the WTO to be one of the countries whose ratification of
the TFA acts brings it into force.

It might bear noting that at this point, the bill had been in the Senate for
five weeks. It took 27 weeks for it to go through the House of Commons, where it
enjoyed the support of all parties. The need for energetic participation was
rather late in coming and only arrived when the bill got to the Senate.

Many of us, including myself, questioned the urgency and need for such a
tight timetable. I asked her if Canada ratifies after 110, we're still a member.
I appreciate there's some face-saving, as the minister indicated earlier, but
does the minister anticipate 14 countries, which would take it to 110, to ratify
within the next week? The reason for the next week is we were looking for
information on transiting goods within Canada, where there had been any
accidents or whatever. That information would take another week or two to
obtain.

The minister responded "absolutely" it would be ratified. And when I
questioned her again, she said, "Yes. Everyone has been acting on this." In
other words, it was crunch time. We had better act quickly. We didn't have a
week to spare.

So in light of the minister's sense of urgency, the committee had just one
more meeting, passed the bill, reported back on November 24, passed in this
chamber on November 30 in a total of seven weeks, a quarter of the time it spent
in the House of Commons.

Those 14 countries that were going to ratify within one week, as assured by
the minister, three months later, as of today, 110 haven't ratified; 108 have.
We were told we had a week. We could do it today and we would still be under the
110.

So the purpose is again not to cast dispersions but to speak about this sense
of urgency we always fall under. It is our job to review documents and bills
carefully, and we can't count — we know this from long experience, and Senator
Baker has highlighted it many times — on the House of Commons to do the
analysis. Canadians have to count on the Senate.

I would just like to close by reminding colleagues that Canada has 12 free
trade agreements. This is only one measure of the effectiveness but it is an
important one. Of those 12 agreements, with 8 of them, our balance of trade has
increased, 8 of the 12. Let me give you some of the numbers.

Before we signed NAFTA with Mexico, our trade balance was minus $2.9 billion.
It is now minus $24 billion. Senator Martin mentioned Korea. In one year, our
trade balance with Korea went from $3.1 billion to $3.9 billion. In Peru, it
went from $2.1 billion when we signed in 2009 to the last year we have figures
available, $2.4 billion.

I won't repeat them all. They're public information, but we have to be
careful about the effects of these deals. We have to be particularly careful
explaining to Canadians the benefits. We're a trading nation. We're highly
dependent on trade, but Canadians have to see how it affects everyone, not just
corporate Canada, how factories closing means there are opportunities somewhere
else. The government has not done a particularly good job of explaining the
benefits of trade deals, and that's something we should look at rather carefully
as well.

Colleagues, I just wanted to add those few comments before we refer to
committee.

The Hon. the Speaker: Will you accept a question, Senator Downe?

Senator Downe: Yes.

[Translation]

Hon. Claude Carignan (Leader of the Opposition): The figures you gave
are interesting. I would like to know if the increase in the trade deficit is
due to the fact that we are consuming more goods originating from this new
partner with which we have negotiated a free trade agreement.

(1500)

Is there a shift in our consumption, for example, from a country that we do
not trade with to this new partner? This would appear to increase the trade
deficit, but could simply represent the transfer of purchases from a country
with which we do not have a free trade agreement to this new trade partner. Have
you seen such shifts in purchasing trends, or figures that would suggest such?

[English]

Senator Downe: That is an excellent question. I have looked at the
ones we have deals with. Obviously the economies have expanded. As I said in my
remarks as well, this is one indicator but in my view a major indicator, and
without putting words in his mouth, President Trump has quoted figures of Mexico
as well that he's concerned about on the balance of trade.

I don't have that information. It's a good question. When we signed the trade
deal with Jordan in 2012, there were a host of questions about what we intended
to do and what actually happened. It's part of this follow-up. Did foreign
countries move some of their workers into Jordan and then start to export
directly into Canada because they didn't have trade deals with Canada? Did they
take advantage through Jordan as opposed to doing something in Canada? Those are
some of the questions we should study.

The second part that concerns me about the trade deals is the lack of
follow-up the Government of Canada seems to do. Export Development Corporation
is running commercials on TV saying you buy your shirt in Italy, your tie in
France, why can't you sell overseas? We're a G8 country. That's not a plan for
export. I don't know what that is, but the trade figures indicate that not
enough small- and medium-sized businesses are taking advantage of opportunities.

The question for me is: What program does the government have to come up with
to do that? What do we have to do to convince somebody that it's as easy to sell
in Peru — there are opportunities there — as it is to sell in the United States,
where we do very well because we have similar culture and so on? That's an area
that the government should be looking at.

Hon. Yuen Pau Woo: I have a question for Senator Downe. As a member of
the Foreign Affairs Committee, I share your concern to examine this bill very
carefully and thoroughly. I pledge to do so expeditiously in order to move this
bill along in solidarity with the world community that is supportive of open
trade, supportive of reducing trade barriers and supportive of our European
friends who have moved mountains to come to an agreement on the ratification of
this deal on the other side of the Atlantic.

Senator Downe, the basis on which you make, I think, an assessment of free
trade agreements that we currently have based on the size of the deficits we
have bilaterally, what economic theory or what rationale explains the belief you
have that a larger deficit bilaterally is a bad outcome for Canada?

Senator Downe: As I indicate, and I'll repeat again, it's one of the
many indicators of the effectiveness of trade deals. One of the areas we have to
be particularly concerned about in Canada is what we saw and what we continue to
see in many other countries: an opposition to trade deals because Canadians
don't see the benefits. This is one area where Canadians look and say: What is
going on? How is that working for us?

The pork sector will do very well under CETA. Agriculture should do very well
under CETA. Other areas won't do as well. However, you can't only highlight the
positives without offsetting the negatives and asking what we can do to help
some of those industries adapt or how can we adjust. On these trade figures,
it's an area where you see our exports declining after we sign trade deals.

Senator Woo: Senator, would you agree that in some situations an
increase in imports, which could lead to a larger trade deficit, are actually
beneficial for Canadians? First of all, beneficial for Canadian consumers who
may be receiving these goods at a lower price; and, second, for Canadian
manufacturers and other business owners who receive intermediate inputs in order
for them to manufacture final goods?

The Hon. the Speaker: I regret to inform Senator Downe that his time
has expired. Are you asking for time to answer the question?

Senator Downe: Yes, please.

The Hon. the Speaker: Is leave granted, honourable senators?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Senator Downe: Senator Woo makes a very valid point. Supply chains are
a very important part of the economy, but there are other areas of the economy
as well that are impacted in this, and it appears to be in a negative way. I
notice the new line from some people is, "Well, a lot of the job losses have
been because of robotics and there are really not people working there anymore."
But Canadians look at Mexico and don't see robots. They see Mexicans working at
lower wages with lower benefits, taking jobs that used to be in Canada and they
ask what's going on. Where are the young people? Where are the children of
Canadians going to find opportunities and jobs? Are trade deals oversold or is
the government not doing a good enough job preparing business to take maximum
advantage of these deals and employ more Canadians in Canada selling all over
the world? I think personally that's part of the problem.

Hon. Art Eggleton: I congratulate both the past and current government
for bringing these talks to this point in time where we have an opportunity to
enter into an agreement that I think is quite significant for this country. I
can say this also as a former trade minister, having occupied the position for
about a year and a half in the 1990s and completing two of the free trade
agreements that have been referred to in the numbers by Senator Downe.

I think this needs to get careful examination in every respect, and one of
the things that does need some additional attention is what the government is
going to do to help facilitate trade, because this agreement, yes, it can
produce quite a lot of jobs and it does bring considerable access to this huge
market, but it's an enabling piece of legislation. It doesn't necessarily mean
that's going to happen. It's only going to happen if we get our business
community and professionals in terms of professional services taking advantage
of it.

There's a little bit of a risk-averse tradition in Canada and so there may
need to be a little extra effort by the government to help facilitate this trade
opening up so that we do get a chance to take as much advantage of it as they
will take advantage of in many countries where they are more aggressive in
pursuing these things. A lot of our businesses tend to look to the route to the
United States where 70 per cent of our trade in goods and services is directed.

It would be good when you get this bill to committee to question the
government on what they intend to do to facilitate what is enabling legislation
but by no means a guarantee that all those jobs and opportunities will be taken
advantage of.

The other thing that is worth bearing in mind here, and I pick up on Senator
Pratte's comment about the new President of the United States and the fact that
the commentary is to the effect that a lot of people feel left out of what is
happening in terms of globalization, and globalization is something that's
facilitated by these trade agreements. Yes, a lot of them are being left out
because of automation, but a lot of inequality exists in our society, as in some
other Western societies. How do we help people who might otherwise be left
behind in some of these trade agreements?

All of these things are worth pursuing. The agreement is worth pursuing, but
do have a good look at the details when it gets to committee. There may be some
parts of it that may not be quite what they should be, but I'm sure you'll hear
from different people that will help you come to that decision on each of these
points in the agreement.

(1510)

Also remember that the government needs to get behind this and not just do
what they are doing now. They have trade officers out there all over the world,
but I think extra effort will be needed to get people to go to Europe and other
places, other than going to the United States. Also, how do we deal with people
who get left behind and are at the lower end of the income scale when it comes
to the issues of inequality?

Hon. Diane Bellemare (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative
in the Senate), pursuant to notice of February 15, 2017, moved:

That, in order to allow the Senate to receive a Minister of the Crown
during Question Period as authorized by the Senate on December 10, 2015, and
notwithstanding rule 4-7, when the Senate sits on Tuesday, February 28,
2017, Question Period shall begin at 3:30 p.m., with any proceedings then
before the Senate being interrupted until the end of Question Period, which
shall last a maximum of 40 minutes;

That, if a standing vote would conflict with the holding of Question
Period at 3:30 p.m. on that day, the vote be postponed until immediately
after the conclusion of Question Period;

That, if the bells are ringing for a vote at 3:30 p.m. on that day, they
be interrupted for Question Period at that time, and resume thereafter for
the balance of any time remaining; and

That, if the Senate concludes its business before 3:30 p.m. on that day,
the sitting be suspended until that time for the purpose of holding Question
Period.

The Hon. the Speaker: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to
adopt the motion?

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Frum, seconded by
the Honourable Senator Pratte, for the second reading of Bill S-232, An Act
respecting Canadian Jewish Heritage Month.

Hon. Joan Fraser: Honourable senators, I am not our caucus' critic on
this bill. That is Senator Jaffer. So at the conclusion of my remarks I will
move the adjournment in her name, but she has kindly allowed me to speak today.

I want to thank Senator Frum for presenting this bill, which I think can have
a profoundly constructive impact on the fabric of Canadian society for Jews and
non-Jews alike.

The Jewish heritage in Canada is vast and rich. It goes from coast to coast
to coast. We heard Senator Wetston talk about his childhood in Cape Breton. Many
of us remember Senator Jack Austin, who served here with such great distinction
and I believe was born in Edmonton but fervently represented British Columbia in
this chamber and at all points in between. There have been great Jewish
contributions to this country for many years.

I'm going to speak basically about my region, my city, because that is the
part of Canada that I know best: Montreal.

The Jewish history in Montreal and contribution to Montreal is absolutely
extraordinary. As far back as 1768, as Senator Frum reminded us, the Spanish &
Portuguese Synagogue was founded in Montreal, the oldest synagogue in Canada,
one of the oldest in North America, and it's still going strong, I'm here to
tell you, and a good thing, too.

Jews have been part of our history since then and even a bit before. There
has been pretty constant immigration, but we had two great waves of Jewish
immigration at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century, and then
again after the Second World War when many thousands of Holocaust survivors came
to our country.

In Montreal, in 2011, there were still nearly 6,000 living Holocaust
survivors, and they have had an impact on the consciousness of our community
that should never be underestimated.

We still have about 90,000 Montreal Jews. A quarter of them are Sephardic,
which is a relatively new phenomenon. Most of the Jewish immigration to Canada
for many years was Ashkenazi, but the Sephardic Jews have come and in part have
enriched us because so many of them are naturally francophone, and this has had
a tremendous impact on our understanding of the Jewish community but also of the
world, particularly the Middle East.

Montreal Jews over the years have built a rich, vibrant and absolutely
extraordinarily generous community. It is almost impossible to go anywhere in
Montreal and not be reminded of the extraordinary generosity of the Jewish
community. The generosity has gone first, of course, to the Jewish community
itself, which has had the benefit of hospitals and schools and social programs
of an extraordinary richness, but also generosity to the entire community.
Wherever you go, you're going to see Jewish names as donors of great
philanthropy: Bronfman, Cummings and Hornstein. Many will remember our former
colleague Senator Leo Kolber, also a philanthropist.

Some years ago I was having lunch with the Israeli consul in Montreal, and he
mentioned the generosity of the Montreal Jewish community. Since that was the
only Jewish community that I knew, I said, "Oh, is it unusual? I thought all
Jews were generous." He said, "Yes, but Montreal is absolutely extraordinary."
And that is true.

I'm going to name you some Montreal Jews who have contributed to Montreal and
to Canada. This is not an exhaustive list. It's just a bunch of names that
occurred to me when I sat down with a pen and a piece of paper for about 10
minutes. So nobody should be insulted if your very favourite person is not on
this list. It's a fault in my memory, not in anybody else's.

Let's start with politics. Ezekiel Hart was elected to the Legislative
Assembly of Quebec in 1807, the first Jew ever elected in Canada. Now, there's
more to that story and I'll get back to it in a minute, but there have been many
other illustrious Montreal Jews who have contributed to the political life of
our country.

We all know and respect our former colleague Irwin Cotler, the great human
rights advocate whose most famous clients included Nelson Mandela and Maher
Arar.

Everybody remembers the wonderful, eloquent David Lewis, who made his career
in Ontario, okay, but he was educated in Montreal. One of the most gorgeous
stories is about when he was being interviewed at McGill University for a Rhodes
Scholarship. One of the examining panel was Sir Edward Beatty, then the
President of the CPR. I think it was Beatty who asked David Lewis, "If you were
Prime Minister, what's the first thing you would do?" Lewis answered,
"Nationalize the CPR." They gave him the Rhodes Scholarship anyway, and I think
it had to be in part due to his great political courage.

There have been other people who have had possibly debatable political
courage. Some of you will recall the story of Fred Rose, the Montreal MP who was
a faithful communist and indeed later was imprisoned, I believe, convicted,
anyway, of spying for the Soviet Union and ended his days in Poland having been
stripped of his Canadian citizenship. I doubt any of us would have shared the
ideals he had, but he lived by the courage of his convictions.

(1520)

One of my favourite examples is the late Victor Goldbloom, who was at first a
cabinet minister in Quebec, where he was responsible for, among other things,
saving the Olympic Games, but who then, of course, went on to make great
contributions in other fields. Perhaps he is best known in Canada as the former
Commissioner of Official Languages, but he was also the head of the Canadian
Council of Christians and Jews for many years. He spent his life building
bridges.

What about the arts? Oh, my! Rich, rich contributions in the arts! You could
go back to the school of the Jewish Painters in Montreal in the 1930s and 1940s,
who I have always believed were far better collectively than the Group of Seven,
even if not as well known. We have had poets, A.M. Klein; Irving Layton; Leonard Cohen, a poet and a singer; the great novelist Mordecai Richler;
the unforgettable William Shatner, not to mention the fact that for many years
Montreal was a tremendous centre of Yiddish culture — Yiddish theatre, papers
and societies. Not any more as true as it was, but it was a phenomenal centre
for many years.

Jurists. Remember Morris Fish, former justice of the Supreme Court of Canada?
The late Alan Gold was Chief Justice of Quebec's Superior Court, and one of the
great mediators and arbitrators and negotiators of this country. It was to him
that governments turned to solve things like the Oka crisis — not easy tasks.
Then, of course, you all knew our colleague Yoine Goldstein, who was himself
often thought of as a candidate for the Supreme Court.

I could go on. I could talk about medicine and business, of course. All that
philanthropy had to come from success somewhere, mostly business. But what I
want to stress is that all this success and generosity is all the more
remarkable because in my city and province, as elsewhere throughout the Western
world, Jews have not always been welcome. I mentioned Ezekiel Hart. He was twice
elected and twice expelled from the legislative assembly by his peers there,
basically because he was a Jew. It was not until more than 10 years after
Ezekiel Hart died that Louis- Joseph Papineau passed an emancipation act at last
to allow Jews to serve in our political institutions.

We've all got bitter awareness of the policies in the 1930s that came under
the general heading of "none is too many." No Jewish immigration at all would
still be too many Jews coming into our country. We know how many died as a
result. And it goes on. There is still vandalism of synagogues; resistance to
the construction of new synagogues. We have come a long, long, long way in our
society, but we still have some way to go. Anti- Semitism, which is one of the
most deeply rooted and pernicious aspects of our civilization, is not yet dead.

I'd like to quote for you some remarks from former American President Barack
Obama. A couple of years ago he was speaking to an American group on the
occasion of Jewish American Heritage Month. He said a couple of things that I
think are worth putting on the record:

. . . Anti-Semitism is, and always will be, a threat to broader human
values to which we all must aspire. And when we allow anti-Semitism to take
root, then our souls are destroyed, and it will spread.

I'm going to quote another element of his speech in a moment, but I would
just like to add here that that is why I think this bill is important. It's
important for all of us to be aware not only of the richness, the wealth and the
extraordinary contribution that the Jewish heritage has made to this country but
also of the fact that we can never consider ourselves immune to the forces of
abuse and of hatred.

The Jewish community in Montreal has been an extraordinary source of
outreach. Jews were never afraid of learning French. The first couple of
families I ever met in Montreal who were Jewish, each, as it happens, spoke five
languages. English and French were just two of them. That was fine. In
particular, one family I remember, would tell jokes over the dinner table in the
language best suited to the jokes. I was just dazzled.

But we are not immune. The particularly deep-rooted nature of anti-Semitism
requires that we be reminded again and again — perhaps not every day, but for
one month every year? That would be good: to be reminded of both the good and
the dangerous.

So may we always remember that our shared heritage makes us stronger,
that our roots are intertwined. May we always choose faith over nihilism,
and courage over despair, and hope over cynicism and fear.

I believe that will be the result if Canada adopts this bill and lives up to
the promise that it offers.

I move the adjournment in the name of Senator Jaffer.

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

The Hon. the Speaker: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to
adopt the motion?

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Wells, seconded
by the Honourable Senator Enverga, for the adoption of the second report
(interim), as amended, of the Special Senate Committee on Senate
Modernization, entitled Senate Modernization: Moving Forward (Omnibus
Bills), presented in the Senate on October 4, 2016.

Hon. Diane Bellemare (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative
in the Senate): I rise today to continue the thread of the speech I began
last week regarding the motion relating to the report on modernization dealing
with omnibus bills.

I have done some research, and although my thoughts are not yet entirely in
order, I would still like to speak to this matter today because I understand
that we need to send this motion on to the Standing Committee on Privileges,
Standing Rules and Orders as soon as possible.

As I was saying, the use of omnibus bills in this country dates back almost
to Confederation. According to the Library of Parliament, the first omnibus bill
was introduced in 1868. As far back as 1923, the practice began eliciting a
negative reaction.

(1530)

As I said last time, omnibus bills raise many questions around the
performance of our constitutional duties. The motion before us seeks to adopt
the second report of the special committee. This report contains two
recommendations. Recommendation No. 9 calls on the Committee on Rules and
Procedures to develop a process in the Rules of the Senate by which
omnibus bills are referred to an appropriate committee to determine whether they
ought to be divided into several bills. Recommendation No. 10 states that when
the Senate applies this practice, the government and the House of Commons will
be informed of such referral and of any determination by a committee to sever an
omnibus bill.

A closer look at these recommendations reveals that making such a request to
the Rules Committee is not as easy as it seems. I think it will take time to
develop a clear process. As I said before, there are no rules governing omnibus
bills. According to parliamentary procedure at the other place, an omnibus bill
is defined as a bill consisting of a number of related but separate parts which
seek to enact one or several new acts or to repeal or amend one or several
existing acts.

Many a debate has been held on the subject of omnibus bills and Speakers have
ruled on the matter. I invite you to read the debates held in 2014 on a question
raised by Senator Moore.

References regarding omnibus bills also exist. One that I believe to be
particularly useful concerns the objective sought by the omnibus bill. In 1988,
the Right Honourable Herb Gray, then leader of the opposition in the House of
Commons, said:

The essential defence of an omnibus procedure is that the Bill in
question, although it may seek to create or to amend many disparate
statutes, in effect has one basic principle or purpose which ties together
all the proposed enactments and thereby renders the Bill intelligible for
parliamentary purposes.

The committee should probably take that criterion into account. As other
parliamentarians pointed out in subsequent debates, that unifying principle can
be quite a broad one, such as the prosperity of Canada's economy. This very
broad principle can accommodate many bills that might better have been passed
individually, not as part of an omnibus bill. That is why I feel this debate is
important.

Since coming to the Senate, I have seen a considerable number of bills passed
as part of budget implementation bills. It needn't always be that way. A budget
implementation bill can serve to announce public policy intentions. It can
combine all amendments of a fiscal or budgetary nature. However, in recent
years, some of these bills have had nothing to do with budget implementation. My
staff and I have started putting together a list of such bills, but we haven't
finished.

Nevertheless, for the benefit of our new senators, I would like to raise a
number of points that the Rules Committee ought to examine and that we ought to
discuss here. Some of the bills that were passed could have been split. One
particular bill that the Finance Committee and the Social Affairs Committee
studied comes to mind: Bill C-4, a budget implementation bill introduced in
March 2013. Division 5 of Part 3 of the budget included amendments to the Canada
Labour Code that had to do with occupational health and safety. The bill
proposed a new definition of "danger", eliminated health and safety officers and
regional security officers and transferred their duties and responsibilities to
the Minister of Labour, and enhanced internal resolution mechanisms for employee
complaints of workplace hazards.

It is almost immediately apparent that this bill had little to do with the
financial nature of the budget. In particular, there were no prior consultations
about this bill. This was noted by the Social Affairs Committee which, in its
report, pointed out the lack of consultation on this aspect of the budget
implementation bill. I was a member of the committee at the time, and I found it
interesting to reread our debates. Senator Eggleton asked a witness a question
when union and management representatives appeared before the committee. His
question was as follows:

[English]

Thank you very much, gentlemen, for being here and contributing to our
deliberation of this provision of the budget.

There was a definition that was worked on for several years and I think
was put in place in terms of the word "danger." It was back in 2000, and it
involved extensive consultations with both employers and employee
representatives, but this one I'm not aware of much consultation having gone
on.

Could all three of you tell me just how much consultation went on leading
to this change in the definition?

[Translation]

The employers' representative, Mr. Farrell, answered as follows:

[English]

FETCO was not consulted in advance of the drafting of this legislation.

The union said the same and all the witnesses were not consulted for those
changes.

That leads me to put before you criteria that perhaps we should have when we
look at bills that look like omnibus bills. How much was it consulted? Was there
any consultation? What was the process followed? I looked at the budget
implementation bills and I found some of them and I think in the process we will
have to study those. That could be a criteria on which we could base the
judgment.

[Translation]

Several other budget implementation bills gave rise to tensions, of which the
committees made note.

We may see fewer omnibus bills of this nature with the Senate we have today.
The Senate is more independent, which will undoubtedly shape its relationship
with the other chamber. Recent budget implementation bills gave rise to
uneasiness due to the Senate's bipartisan nature. It was easier to lump together
several bills in a budget implementation bill, even though they may have
deserved to be studied separately.

I will end my remarks here.

(1540)

Hon. Claude Carignan (Leader of the Opposition): Senator Bellemare, I
was listening to you and I noted the difficulty raised by making changes like
this quickly. As I say more and more often, 150 years of tradition cannot be
changed in 150 days. We have to take the time to carefully study the reasons why
the Senate operated this way and how we can improve the system for the future.

I therefore want to add my voice to the debate on the second report of the
Special Committee on Senate Modernization dealing with omnibus bills. Much ink
has been spilled on the issue of omnibus over the past several years. This is a
case where we see a conflict between the government's right to legislate in the
manner it deems appropriate and the right of parliamentarians to examine that
legislation appropriately and reach a clear, informed opinion on the matter.

This issue has generated heated debate in the past. We will all recall how,
in 1982, the bells rang for two weeks in the House of Commons when the
opposition called for the energy policy bill to be split. It would seem the
Committee on Senate Modernization was right to examine that thorny issue.

Those who have been here for a few years know that it is a well established
tradition that budget bills are divided in order to be studied by different
committees. Whether under Liberal or Conservative governments, the government
and the opposition in the Senate have agreed that different committees will be
tasked with examining the various parts of omnibus budget bills in greater
depth. Those committees must then report to the Committee on National Finance,
which oversees the study and reports to the Senate. That process functions
relatively well. It provides the benefit of the expertise of the committees and
their members and allows for more time to do the studies.

I think we would benefit from doing things that way more often. Take for
instance Bill C-6; while all of the subjects it touches on relate to immigration
and citizenship, they remain quite different given that they cover everything
from terrorist threats to official languages. We suggested that the government
divide the study of the bill among various committees: National Security,
Official Languages and Social Affairs, to be specific; however, that suggestion
was not accepted.

Colleagues, I hope that, in the future, we will be able to benefit fully from
the expertise of each of our committees by using this technique of dividing the
study of a bill based on the specific subjects addressed in the bill as a whole
more often.

Another point I would like to address is the dilemma of the vote. The
proposal by the Modernization Committee goes much further than simply dividing
the omnibus bill among the committees. The committee proposes a mechanism for
dividing omnibus bills into separate bills. As stated in the committee's report,
the Senate has done this in the past, so this is nothing new. Rather, this is a
matter of codifying the practice and giving it a clear structure.

[English]

Before I discuss further the challenge posed by omnibus bills, I want to
remind colleagues that the Liberal Party promised in its 2015 platform that they
would end the "undemocratic practice" of using omnibus bills. That was because,
and I quote again, "Stephen Harper has . . .used omnibus bills to prevent
Parliament from properly reviewing and debating his proposals."

We have already seen a certain number of omnibus bills since the election.

[Translation]

Numerous decisions by the Speakers of the House of Commons and the Senate
have recognized the government's right to do things this way. In the present
context, where days of parliamentary debate are limited and legislation is
increasingly complex, it is hard to imagine that the government might stop using
this tool and it is tempting for governments to slip a number of smaller
legislative measures into a budget bill, for example. Everything is put in the
same bag. The label "budget" is tacked on and Parliament is asked to pass the
whole thing or else bring the government down on a confidence vote.
Consequently, we are not about to stop having omnibus bills sent to us.

Parliament must therefore have tools it can use to adequately do its work of
examining legislation and making decisions. On the question of examining bills,
as I have pointed out, the Senate has already developed good practices, and it
is up to us to make sure not only that they will be continued, but also that
they will be used more often still.

It is when the time comes to vote that omnibus bills present a challenge to
parliamentarians, one that is almost impossible for them to overcome. How can we
vote down a bill with a clear conscience when we support all but one of its 12
divisions? How can we vote for a bill when only one of the divisions matters to
us, without being criticized for abandoning our principles on that question?
These are real dilemmas that parliamentarians face when presented with omnibus
bills.

The dilemma is even greater for senators. Some believe it is their duty to
support the government's budget measures, or at least to make sure they are not
defeated. In fact, there is a school of thought that holds that the Senate does
not have the ability to defeat budget measures passed by the House. In the
recent debate on Bill C-29, the government leader addressed us at length on this
subject. In his opinion, the Senate could not have voted against or amended Bill
C-29, since it was a budget implementation bill. Fortunately, he later changed
his mind and proposed an amendment that the Senate in fact accepted, the effect
of which was to remove some of the proposed budget measures.

I would point out that the Senate exercised its rights again when it amended
Bill C-29. However, Senator Harder's argument that senators cannot vote against
budgetary measures has nonetheless been used, to no avail, fortunately.

Furthermore, the solution of dividing such a bill would help senators facing
these dilemmas by removing a measure that may have very little to do with the
main part of the bill. The Senate could take a clear position on each provision
and, by proceeding in this manner for non-budgetary measures subtly slipped into
budget implementation bills, we would be giving senators the option of voting
without fear of being accused of wanting to usurp the power from elected members
for a vote on budgetary measures.

The committee is proposing that we include a mechanism in our Rules whereby
the Senate could ask a committee to examine whether a bill should be split up. I
think this is a reasonable approach. It would not be a matter of doing so every
time or impetuously. It is understood that such a mechanism would be used
sparingly, but its mere existence in our Rules, the simple threat that it poses,
should cause the government to think twice before using omnibus bills. Although
the decision to refer to the committee would require the support of a majority
of senators, each and every one of us would have to think about and justify our
vote.

Other mechanisms might also be possible, and the committee's proposed
solution could certainly be adjusted. I think it makes sense to send this matter
to the Rules Committee so that our colleagues there can suggest possible changes
we could make to our Rules.

I urge you to adopt the motion so that it may be referred to the Rules
Committee as soon as possible.

[English]

Hon. Peter Harder (Government Representative in the Senate): Would the
honourable senator take a question?

Senator Ringuette: That's a nice reversal of roles. I like that.

Senator Harder: This feels really good.

I really do welcome the senator's contribution to this important debate. I
only wish to underscore the commitment that he referenced of the government with
respect to not having omnibus bills, particularly those that involve budgets.

(1550)

I would like to ask the honourable senator whether he can identify any
element in the budget implementation bills 1 or 2 of the last budget that were
not elements that were referenced specifically in the budget materials.

[Translation]

Senator Carignan: Bill C-29 included a provision for a complete
consumer protection code under the Bank Act, which in my opinion had nothing to
do with the budget.

[English]

Senator Harder: If I could I would be happy to provide the honourable
senator with the specific reference in the budget that predicted the division
that was in the Budget Implementation Act. My point is that this government is
very constrained by its own commitment not to include materials in its budget
implementation bill that had not been referenced, as has been the practice in
the past.

[Translation]

Senator Carignan: What is the question?

[English]

Senator Harder: Would you acknowledge that when you had the joy of
sitting on this side, you were quite prepared to have amendments with respect to
appointments to the Supreme Court added to budget implementation bills?

[Translation]

Senator Carignan: If we keep this up, we might end up agreeing with
one another. I am more accustomed to asking questions than answering them these
days. Habits change quickly.

I believe that we agree on how important this is to the quality of our
debates and to the transparency we wish to show Canadians. We are fortunate to
have among us experts from every field and to be able to undertake comprehensive
legislative reviews in order to provide the best possible advice to the
government and to serve the interest of all Canadians.

[English]

The Hon. the Speaker: Are senators ready for the question?

Hon. Senators: Question.

The Hon. the Speaker: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to
adopt the motion?

Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Bellemare,
calling the attention of the Senate to the Senate's legislative work from
the 24th to the 41st Parliament and on elements of evaluation.

Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable
senators, with leave I would like to take the adjournment in the name of Senator
Andreychuk.

That the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples be permitted,
notwithstanding usual practices, to deposit with the Clerk of the Senate a
report relating to its study on best practices and on-going challenges
relating to housing in First Nation and Inuit communities in Nunavut,
Nunavik, Nunatsiavut and the Northwest Territories, and that the report be
deemed to have been tabled in the Chamber.

The Hon. the Speaker: On debate, Senator Paterson.

Senator Patterson: Question.

Hon. Joan Fraser: I would like to know why this motion is being put.

Senator Patterson: Thank you, Your Honour. I should have anticipated a
question from Senator Fraser. We thank her for her due diligence and keeping the
committees on their toes.

Honourable senators, this report is imminent, and we have tentatively
scheduled its possible release during the forthcoming break week. That's the
purpose of the motion.

Senator Fraser: I have to phrase this as a question: Does Senator
Patterson recall my many interventions to the effect that unless the matter is
urgent, I believe we should abide by the custom rule that reports should be
submitted first to the Senate as distinct from the clerk and the public? I
didn't hear from your response, Senator Patterson, an indication of urgency in
the case of this particular report.

Senator Patterson: Thank you for that question. Frankly, honourable
senators, we have looked at the busy schedule of Senate reports being tabled in
the next number of weeks, and having regard to getting proper attention of the
press and the northern media to this important study, we did feel that the
coming week would be the best opportunity to give this report the attention it
deserves.

We will take into account Senator Fraser's concern. There's probably still an
opportunity to consider tabling the report the following week, while the Senate
is in session. I will pledge that I will encourage members of the steering
committee to consider that option seriously.

In the meantime, we would request the indulgence of the Senate to give us a
little flexibility — in case that proves logistically challenging — to go ahead and
have this permission that we will not seek capriciously in future. Thank you.

The Hon. the Speaker: Are senators ready for the question?

Hon. Senators: Question.

The Hon. the Speaker: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to
adopt the motion?

That the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce be
authorized to study and report on current and emerging issues regarding:

(a) the regulation of the banking sector in the United States,
including in the context of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and
Consumer Protection Act (the Dodd-Frank Act);

(b) monetary policy in the United States, including expected
increases in the target range for the federal funds rate;

(c) bilateral economic relations between Canada and the United
States that affect each country's commerce;

(d) the manner in which changes in these economic relations
and regulatory measures, and monetary policy in the United States might
affect Canada's economy and financial sector; and

That the committee submit its final report to the Senate no later than
June 30, 2017, and that the committee retain all powers necessary to
publicize its findings until 180 days after the tabling of the final report.

He said: The reason for moving this motion is that we have a new
administration in the United States. Our Banking Committee believes that it's
important to inquire about the issues that we have listed in the motion and to
meet our counterparts in Washington and to meet with some of the financial
institutions in New York.

(1600)

I know that Senator Fraser will be asking about travel. We will be presenting
a budget to Internal Economy to facilitate that.

The Hon. the Speaker: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to
adopt the motion?

That the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural
Resources be permitted, notwithstanding usual practices, to deposit with the
Clerk of the Senate a report relating to its study on the transition to a
lower carbon economy, between March 7 and March 9, 2017, if the Senate is
not then sitting; and that the report be deemed to have been tabled in the
Chamber.

The Hon. the Speaker: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to
adopt the motion?

That the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance be permitted,
notwithstanding usual practices, to deposit with the Clerk of the Senate,
between February 27 and March 10, 2017, a report relating to its study on
infrastructure, if the Senate is not then sitting, and that the report be
deemed to have been tabled in the Chamber.

He said: The purpose of asking for this motion is that we'd like to get our
report out and tabled before the end of the month. We have a break week. We're
ready to go in terms of trying to position this report. We think it's a vitally
important report in terms of the status of our first installment of the
infrastructure study. We think that with the budget coming up, the work we're
doing on Supplementary Estimates (C) and the latest estimates, that this would
get lost in the rush of all the other information coming out at the beginning of
March. We feel a sense of urgency, and the urgency is real because we think the
infrastructure program is a critical platform of the government. We need to get
our report out, which comes out subsequent to the report of the PBO, but there
will be further messaging in our report that I think gives a better indication
of things that could be done to improve the execution of the infrastructure
program.

The Hon. the Speaker: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to
adopt the motion?